Would Kucinich / Paul 08 as independents sink the Democrats?

Or the Republicans? Or both equally? If their negotiated stance was strongly anti-corporate (anti-war is a given) would you vote for them?

That's because there's lots of Republicans who are stupid enough to vote for these two. Democrats are a lot smarter, on average.

Nader fans too?

And everyone here is not a Democrat.

from what I have seen on the RP forums. Informed DUers recognize how bad Ron Paul is. Such a ticket might have the same problems as a Cheney/Feingold ticket. Whow would vote for it?

mostly ;)

:rofl:

It is highly unlikely, of course. I am no fan of Ron Paul's racism, but BOTH of those candidates are the ONLY ones in the current race who have it right on the overwhelming majority of issues that are important to me. They've both got the issues nailed, and none of the other candidates do. What's not to like? Should I shoot my best political interests in the foot to register a protest vote against Ron Paul? I don't think so.

Racism is a deal breaker for me. It's the first wedge in marginalizing people. Would be in Iraq if they were white English speaking Christians?

Paul has one issue right and that's it. And I can't say how disappointing it is that anyone here would knowingly vote for a racist. It's embarassing.

...to knowingly vote for the lessor evil all the time, that admonition is rather toothless.

I don't think it's toothless at all. I couldn't ever vote for a racist, anymore than I could vote for Joe Lieberman.

As far as I can tell Lieberman is a virulent anti-Arab racist.

The War?

If I were to pick the one issue Paul's "got it right" on, I would say it's non-interventionism in general. That's a lot broader than just war, it means no more funding and arming our imperial proxies. No more weapons and money to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Colombia, and plenty of other brutal regimes. No more CIA assistance for right-wing opposition to progressive regimes in Latin America and Africa. If you're looking at the Presidential election only from the standpoint as to how it affects Americans, I agree Paul is a very poor choice, but if you look at it from the perspective of the Third World under America's imperial boot, well, the issue gets muddy.

You realize it would also end AIDS funding and funding that goes toward fighting hunger and disease. It would mean pulling out of the U.N. Non-interventionism is a two edged sword.

Would an end to humanitarian aid be worth an end to American imperialism? I think it might be. And as far as the UN is concerned, it's just an organization the different imperial bullies use to settle their scores without resorting to war and carve up the planet peacefully. Better than war I suppose, but the UN is in need of some serious reform-- perhaps the US leaving would lead to a renaissance of the Non-Aligned Movement.

it's not going to happen. Even if Paul became president, he'd be immediately neutered by Congress. So would Kucinich for that matter.

as we know, on these types of forums, it's always fun to discuss/debate the "what ifs" that aren't gonna happen.

ok. I am pretty optimistic, but... I don't know.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You realize it would also end AIDS funding and funding that goes toward fighting hunger and disease. It would mean pulling out of the U.N. Non-interventionism is a two edged sword.

I should not have to take the time to explain how outrageous that statement is. Making a blank statement of certainty about what things will happen in the future when they have no idea what will happen is not being substantive, factual, rational or reasonable.

If the statement was:

You realize this could also mean ending AIDS funding and funding that goes toward fighting hunger and disease. It could also mean pulling out of the U.N. Non-interventionism is a two edged sword.

It would have been fine and I would not have commented.

Self-delete

People should only be represented by two capitalist/imperialist parties of differing character...even if there are major issues of concern to people that neither party is seriously addressing.

Just curious, in 1854 would you have encouraged Lincoln to stick by the Whigs? Would you have carried a "Fuck Fremont" sign in 1856?

But before you do, please look here:
ttp://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

Iraq war: opposed, would end the war as soon as possible-- "objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution, and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties."

Foreign policy: staunchly noninterventionist, anti-imperialist-- "war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned." "Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others. He denies being an isolationist: he advocates "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations". National Journal rated Paul's foreign policy as 20% conservative in 2006 (28% in 2005)."

This is one of the most important issues of all to me, and ONLY Kucinich and Paul get it right IMO.

Iran: "Paul rejects the "dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle." He claims the current circumstances with Iran mirror those under which the Iraq War began, and has urged Congress not to authorize war with Iran. In the U.S. House of Representatives, only Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against the Rothman-Kirk Resolution, which asks the U.N. to charge Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating its genocide convention and charter."

Corporate globalization: "Paul is a proponent of free trade, and opposes many "free trade agreements" including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade". He says they serve special interests and big business, not citizens." Would withdraw from the WTO, etc.

"Paul also has an above 83% pro fair trade voting record in the House of Representatives according to Global Trade Watch."

911/terrorism: "Paul supports reopening investigation into the attacks to discover why the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not act on 70 internal field tips.... He would also investigate why the various intelligence agencies could not collaborate on information to prevent the attacks while spending $40 billion per year. He has called the 9/11 Commission Report a "charade": "Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends."

Supports elimination of the Department of Homeland Security.

Income tax, IRS, fiscal policy: Eliminate the income tax, IRS, and Federal Reserve-- support for commodity currency-- "Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He has stated in numerous speeches that most of his colleagues in Congress are unwilling to abolish the central bank because it funds many government activities. He says that to compensate for eliminating the "hidden tax"<101> of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money which subsidizes select industries, while poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation."

Support for nonviolent tax resistance.

Support for FIXING Social Security rather than raiding it or destroying it. I don't agree with all his proposals, but his basic premise is correct, IMO.

Legal policy-- supports jury nullification and habeas corpus, including for political detainees. "National Journal rated Paul's overall social policies as 44% conservative and 52% liberal in 2006 (45% and 50%, respectively, in 2005)"

Opposes the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, and domestic surveillance. Opposes the draft. Opposes eminent domain.

Supports stem cell research.

Opposes the federal death penalty (but not necessarily state capital punishment :-( )

Environmental protections-- a mixed bag, some good, some bad. "Paul believes that polluters are aggressors, and should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability." "In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, he co-sponsored a bill preventing the US from funding nuclear power plants in China. He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner."

Supports hemp legalization, or at least allowing states to permit it independently of federal gov't regulation.

And so on. Excerpts are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul .

Don't get me wrong-- there is much that I don't like about Ron Paul, including his views on the proper role of government and the U.N., but the OP proposes a ticket that links Paul with a president who's views on those topics I overwhelmingly support.

I'm not endorsing all of Ron Pauls politics by any means-- just saying that I would vote for a Kucinich/Paul ticket if that's what it takes to put Dennis Kucinich into office. Kucinich is America's best hope, IMO.

Advocates for the elimination of federal involvement and management of health care (buh bye, Medicare).

Defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.

He favors withdrawal from the United Nations.

He has long advocated ending the federal income tax and reducing government spending by abolishing most federal agencies.

He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security (privatization).

...but I agree with you on much of the rest of your reply. I do not agree with many of Ron Pauls positions, including his positions on the proper role of government (at least in some cases, like health care), the U.N., and the supremacy of private property over social responsibility.

His social security proposals are better than you're implying, if I understand them correctly. He advocates allowing workers to opt out of social security, but not outright privatization-- his position is that if a percentage of workers opts to take their retirement benefits into their own hands, they might do better than social security while relieving the strain on social security for those who remain in the public system. He also strongly opposes congress using money from the SS trust fund-- the fiscal irresponsibility primarily responsible for social security's problems.

My personal stance is that SS taxes ought to be raised to cover the shortfall while simultaneously protecting SS from congressional access, but Paul and I share the essential goal of protecting worker's retirement and disability benefits rather than turning SS over to private interests, as Bush has proposed.

He certainly does want it overturned, there is no doubt about that. He wants each individual state to decide. If that works out I'm gonna invest in coat hanger futures.

And he certainly does want to allow people to opt out of Social Security. Call that what you will (privatization lite? LOL), it would be the end of our most important safety net for seniors, orphans, and the disabled. Just how is it going to relieve the strain on Social Security if people stop paying into it? Do you think that young workers would opt in while eligible beneficiaries would do the opposite? This is ridiculous beyond description.

Paul doesn't want to protect Social Security, he wants to destroy it. That is a basic tenant of economic libertarians like him. The truth is, Social Security is just fine the way it is. The program's only real danger comes from its 'saviors' like Ron Paul and George Bush.

seems to be about 30% or less of the issues. And obviously choice isn't high up on your list.

Lets talk about choice. The last several republican administrations, going back at least four decades, have been overwhelmingly opposed to women's reproductive rights, yet Roe v. Wade still stands. "Choice" is primarily a fringe fundy issue that the republicans use to whip up frenzy in their base but which they understand is political suicide to seriously attack. Their attempts to stack the Supreme Court testify to this-- if Roe v. Wade is ever seriously challenged, the republican party needs deniability, they need to be able to distance themselves, at least in the political mainstream, from overturning Roe.

Paul's views on choice have zero political traction except as a rhetorical device.

it will totally tip the scales of the Supreme Court. Pro-life presidents haven't had that luxury yet. Pro-lifers have been firing up the anti-choice legislation in red states for the last few months, just chomping at the bit to put government in control of women's bodies.

Even though Kucinich was a big anti-choicer a few years ago, I doubt he would appoint anti-choice SC justices. Ron Paul would, and anyone who wants to put him a heartbeat away from the Presidency, doesn't care much about choice. That may be you, but it isn't me.

I could be wrong though.

I don't like taxes, but I also don't like the dentist - doesn't mean I want to abolish either.

social security and Medicare.

He has a 100% lifetime rating . . . from the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY.

And I really hate the terms "pro-choice"/"anti-choice"...it implies those who support abortion rights support all matters of personal choice and those who oppose abortion rights oppose all matters of personal choice-- clearly neither is the case. I'd prefer it if we could use the term "pro/anti reproductive rights"

he is anti civil-rights - like many other candidates, sadly - on the issue of gay marriage. He is also a bit to fervent about wanting America to be a "Christian Nation" in my opinion. Add to that his disdain for public education, and you have a recipe where the lower classes will be unable to escape from their position.

I always thought America should try to be less caste-oriented, but that's just me I guess.

By the way, I have to wonder if you are lost perhaps?

his stances on the economy would be disasterous, imo.

He also wants to weaken regulations on safety, trade, and business - and you don't have to look far to see the damages that can bring: Katrina, Walter Reed, the poisonous consumer products we've been seeing, Enron, Blackwater, and many other of our current problems are the direct result of "less government."

Add to that the fact that he believes that America is a Christian nation and would push laws to support that, and he's lost me.

The racism thing sucks, as does the anti-equal rights, but when you add it up, an anti-imperialist stance does not make up for all that.

I see anti-imperialism and reform of U.S. foreign policy as the most important single issue at this moment in American politics. That's my personal bias, admittedly. I don't think Ron Paul will ever have the traction to do something as destructive as undermining Roe v. Wade, or completely deregulating laissez-faire capitalism. But I think a Kucinich/Paul administration could at least make serious inroads into exposing the evils of U.S. foreign policy and set the stage for significant foreign policy reform.

As for "weakening" regulations on trade, he wants to withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA, which I fully support. His reasons and my reasons might differ, but if he wants to fight globalization from a different perspective, that's fine with me.

Finally, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter by any means. In the context of the OP, however, I do think a Kucinich/Paul ticket would do America far more good than any other conceivable combination of the current candidates.

has gotten us largely where we are now, but I think he would be a disaster for everyone in America but the elite.

If he gets in, who would stop him from doing what he wants? Congress?!? Is this the same Congress who has successfully stopped Bush for all of his crimes?

I like the idea that Paul sort of breaks from the recent Conservative stance, but does he really? He wants to create a limited, privatized government- not only more of the same, but to an even larger degree. Maybe we could get Blackwater to replace the police, and those poor kids whose parents can't afford school can work in all those jobs currently served by immigrants?

Frankly, nine-tenths of the appeal is getting DK into the white house.

1. Katrina, Walter Reed, the poisonous consumer products we've been seeing, Enron, Blackwater, and many other of our current problems are the direct result of "less government."

I don't believe these are due to "less government", despite the disingenuous GOP rhetoric. They are due to callousness and a dangerous nexus between corporate and state power. Not that I agree with Paul's ideas of corporate deregulation-- I definitely do not.

2. Add to that the fact that he believes that America is a Christian nation and would push laws to support that, and he's lost me.

What laws? As far as I can tell, Paul wants fewer laws not more, and he's a pretty strict Constitutionalist, so I don't see him trying to chip away at the barrier between church and state as many of his GOP colleagues have done.

3. The racism thing sucks, as does the anti-equal rights, but when you add it up, an anti-imperialist stance does not make up for all that.

Depends entirely on your perspective-- are you saying that on the basis of immediate self-interest as an American or are you looking at it from the perspective of the people who most suffer from American imperialism and live outside our borders? All the Democratic politicians like to talk about the lives of American soldiers in Iraq, but last time I checked that was a drop in the bucket compared to the dead Iraqis, displaced families/lives and the complete destruction and rape of their infrastructure, society and resources.

1 - Enron, like the Savings & Loan scandal before it, is a direct result of deregulation, a major tactic of the smaller government crowd. I really cannot see it any other way.

At Walter Reed, the culprit was privatization, much like Blackwater's excesses in Iraq which have cost many lives and many more millions of our dollars.

The problem is that these both are the result of reducing oversight, responsibility, and culpability - it essentially allows for unscrupulous people to take advantage of loopholes, and getting rid of safety and trade regulations does just that.

2 - He wants to make abortion illegal, gay equal rights a "states issue" (much like slavery?), and frankly seems ignorant about the scope of the Establishment Clause.

3 - I hate American Imperialism as much or more than most - I have been griping about it ever since Iran-Contra happened, which is what got me interested in politics as a teenager. I think it causes many problems here and around the world, and won't argue it doesn't, but I also have problems supporting a racist, anti-equal rights, "Republitarian" to do so. I think it's great that he's challenging the NeoCons to actually think for a change, but I shudder if he wins.

Again, these are just my opinions.

1. What you say about Enron, Blackwater and Walter Reed is all true, but that hardly refutes my statement that these things are more about the marriage of corporate and state power, along with a generalized heartlessness than they are about "less government", which is what the GOP would like us to believe.

Any libertarian socialist (anarchists, mutualists, revolutionary syndicalists, Chomskyites, Left or Council Communists, etc.) will tell you that a reduction in the role of the state does not necessarily entail letting corporations run rampant or eviscerating public services. No, the "big-government v. small-government" debate takes place within a small capitalist box of those who want greater oversight of industry and those who want less. Step outside that little box and there are all kinds of options for reducing the power and size of the state without harming public services or letting the wealthy and powerful do as they please without restriction. To give examples of modest reforms (though reforms only DK or Gravel will touch amongst the major Dem candidates)-- if we stopped funding the military-industrial complex, stopped funding the police-prison-industrial complex, ended the drug war, scaled back or abolished the CIA, NSA, SOA, FBI, ATF, Secret Service, and DEA, stopped criminalizing personal conduct that does not directly violate another's rights-- if we did all that, we could greatly reduce the size and power of the state without deregulating industry or cutting public services or social programs.

2. You need to elaborate on Paul being "ignorant about the scope of the Establishment Clause", and nothing else you cited indicates Dominionist/theocratic aims. For one, the issue of gay marriage IS a issue for the states, as marriage has ALWAYS been an issue for the states-- this is why Paul opposed fellow Republicans pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment (that being said, I do realize his positions on gay rights generally suck). Secondly, his position on abortion, from what I've heard him say on the subject, does not seem to rely on the Bible, but rather his belief that a fetus is a "person" under the 14th Amendment. An atheist could, theoretically, argue that a fetus is a person with rights. Again, this is not necessarily my view, but I'm just saying Paul's views on the subject do not seem primarily informed by Biblical interpretation, rather by Constitutional interpretation (and the belief that a fetus posesses rights).

3. I don't have a problem with what you said on that point, but I'm just saying there are some left-wingers out there who are so anti-imperialist that they'd even support someone as objectionable as Ron Paul if they thought it would hasten the dismantlement of the Empire, and I might be one of them (haven't really decided yet, but I don't think it's gonna make any difference cause Paul ain't gonna run in the general, and as someone else here noted, even if he won, the GOP and Dems would unite to neuter him on dismantlement of the Empire).

I still think we are suffering the results of an attempt to reduce regulation, and Paul's record goes along with that.

I'm not for Big Government - most issues have more than 2 sides of course, but I am against small government. I prefer smart government or perhaps efficient is another good word for it.

Ron Paul opposes net neutrality, OSHA, and a fairly broad spectrum of safety regulations, just like Bush - resulting in non-inspected imported consumer products laced with poison. In my opinion, this is quite often the result of thinking that business/"The Market" will self-regulate and self-police to prevent problems. Yes, most businesses will not do wrong things because they understand the consequences, but is it acceptable to just hope they all act so well?

Why, that'd be throwing away your vote to a third party kucinich ticket. Not only is he racist, but he's anti-choice. Anti-Universal Health Care. Anti-Environment. Any of those on their own would be deal breakers for me. Do you understand the kind of evil we're facing in this election? I'm doing my part to help kill the republican machine that's dragging america down in to the muck. What about you?

It wouldn't hurt either. It would be great for turnout though.

happening, had no merit, was never going to happen. So, why is this still being discussed as though he's seriously considering Paul for VP?

But its a hypothetical question: How much does an anti-corporate, anti-war ticket matter to you. Kucinich / Paul or anyone else. Is it worth going third party for?

you didn't hear Kucinich say this yesterday because you would have had to listen to Mark Germaine who has proudly announced in the past that he gets all his news from USA Today -- and it shows.

onehandle has spoken.

Reminds me of the Technoviking

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4

:thumbsup:

I'd guess they would draw from Republicans more than Dems, but it would draw from the Dems as well. More importantly I think it would draw many independents, including those who have never voted before and those who haven't voted in a long time.

I think that ticket might have a shot at winning. As much as I disagree with Paul on most socio-economic issues, and as much as I disagree with DK on guns, I think I'd have to vote the no-compromise "anti-imperialist" ticket of Kucinich/Paul.

But I don't think that ticket will ever, ever happen. DK and Paul (and their supporters) simply have way too many profound differences on domestic policy for them to make it work.

unless they concentrated on how "evil" the Federal Government is, without giving consideration to where we go next.

And no need to put evil in quotes. The Federal Government IS evil. Has been for some time.

Are you saying that government is evil in itself?

yes, I do believe the state* is necessarily evil.

*I prefer using "state" to "government", as it is a more accurate representation. Government can be simply defined as "that which governs"-- which could mean anything from a Christmas Party planning committee to a child's parents-- the state is a particular form of government, which governs coercively within defined political boundaries.

I've always considered "the government" to be "the people."

Frankly, if the government sucks - and yes, sometimes it sure does - it's because we the people are too lazy/dumb to pay attention to the bouncing ball. That's the root of the bitter irony I feel toward the Reganists who do nothing but bitch about government and avoid responsibility for their actions.

yeah, I'm not sure how successful they'd be at trying to get most of their issues - which they do disagree on - to coincide, honestly.

Dennis: "Well, we stopped the war."

Ron: "Yep."

(long uncomfortable silence)

Dennis: "So... what do you wanna do?"

Ron: "I Don't know. Wanna destroy the infrastructure of the nation while allowing businesses to run amok with no regulations?"

Dennis: "Not really. Want to ban some hand guns?"

Ron: "No. Want to hate some non-Christians?"

(even longer uncomfortable silence)

Dennis: "No. Hey, I have an idea. Let's start a war!"


(play Odd Couple theme song as credits fade)



Besides, the powers that be (and count the votes) would not let them win even if everyone voted for them. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see the 10-20% who do support them throw a monkey wrench into the works. We could end up with President Flip Romney after all.

There are enough Democrats who'd prefer Dennis and who would figure that as VP Ron Paul would be under control.

Is that why Hillary has something like 39 times the support that Dennis has? lol

close election, if 5% vote third party instead of for Hillary, the Republicans would win/be able to steal the election.

independent voters will vote against Hillary and -- if we give them a "none of the above" option -- those anti-Hillary votes may very well go to Paul/Kucinich instead of Romney.

will show up at the polls to vote against Hillary if we mistakenly nominate her.

Without a third party option, those people who vote against Hillary would be voting for the Repub.

With a "give 'em hell" third party ticket , those anti-Hillary votes would have somewhere to go other than the Republican. You couldn't ask for a bigger "give 'em hell" ticket that combining pro-nationalized health care Kucinich with anti-nationalized anything Paul -- do they agree on anything other than the war and the Patriot Act?

and even indies who are that anti-Hillary. And you can't say that if someone won't vote for Hillary they will vote repuke. They may not vote at all. Or they may write in a name.

Anybody Even Kucinich with Ron Paul as VP, I'll be forced to write in Woody Guthrie.

bother responding to me at all? I wasn't speaking to you in this thread nor in any of the others yet you've felt compelled to antagonize me repeatedly. Stop it.

In the short time I have been on DU, I have found Cali one of the most thoughtful, and informative posters here. Then again, perhaps you were being flippant.

I actually thought Mr. Cornyn's comment was funny. I don't mind snark too much.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

not. I responded to a few things you posted. I have not fuggin' idea who you are, and until you started whinging about my cruelty, I wouldn't have even recognized your name. This is a political discussion board and people are going to respond to what you post. Grow a thicker skin, or alert. Calling people out is against the rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think the answer is written on his guitar......

third party push of some kind.

and vice versa. The amount of vote garnered would be minimal. Either one running as an independent without the other would get more votes than a combined ticket in my opinion.

do it.

the Hell Not?"

In Minnesota the elected a professional FUCKING wrestler governor.

In California, they elected a shitty actor governor who came to this country illegally and who mangles the English language as badly as Bush.

If you think Ron Paul and Dennis Kucincich couldn't form a 3rd party ticket and absorb some of the dumbfuck vote, you have an unreasonably optimistic view of the electorate.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich agree with one another on approximately 2% of the issues by my rough estimate. If they campaigned on that 2% of the platform which they share, they would get huge "none of the above" voter support. Maybe even slightly high than Nader (but not nearly so high as Perot).

Picture the type of voter who would support a Paul/Kucinich ticket ...

Do you really see that same guy voting for Hillary if there is no Paul/Kucinich option on the ballot?

is if Ron Paul would have absolutely no impact on domestic policy at all.

I don't want a third party ticket, I'd much rather see Kucinich AGAINST Paul in the general, with REAL issues on the table, and not manufactured war on terra BULLSHIT. Imagine a national discussion actually coming out of this. People actually starting to give a shit again because they had candidates who were serious about changing things. It would all come down to who's version of change is better.

And I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans would side with Dennis, given that question.

Now THAT'S a campaign I would dearly love to see happen!

Will never happen, but wouldn't that be awesome?

I mean, the dialogue/debate of most D v. R Presidential races comes down to two liars debating each other over very carefully-crafted positions on domestic issues (influenced by polls, professional political operatives and pandering to interest groups) and then splitting hairs over foreign policy ("I will make the better Emperor because..."). It would be great to see both candidates actually opposing imperialism and having a real, substantive debate of ideas and worldview on the domestic topics.

If a proportion of the Democratic/ Independent vote is anti-war, I could see an Independent 3rd party siphoning away votes. Not with Tweedledee and Tweedledumb, but as the only ticket completely committed to ending the war as soon as possible.

And IMO he contradictions of a Kucinich/Paul ticket would have it going nowhere fast. End of thread.

Single issue presidential campaigns go nowhere. They never have gone anywhere.

It was enough.

Her supporters keep on bringing up "pro choice" and "will appoint pro choice Supreme Court justices" because they know that's the ONLY positions she has that they can reasonably defend.

Why not vote for a REAL Democrat who will restore the entire Constitution? Obviously including choice.

on it.

I'm a yellowdog Dem, and I've never even considered voting for a republican. This is not because of party loyalty, it's just that no decent human being would ever consider being a republican. If someone is a republican, then they obviously support what republicans do and what they have done.

And no decent human being would ever ally themselves with that much ignorance, hate, bloodshed, hypocrisy, greed, and corruption.

But it would have to be PARADIGM-CHANGING and PROGRESSIVE ~ a new way of thinking on a number of levels that would ensure sustainability, both of our democracy and of the planet.

imo Kucinich-Paul (or the reverse) ain't it.

Gore-Kucinich??

I could certainly get behind that one. :)

But I think both are out of it at this point and we're pretty much left with same ol' same ol' ~ UNLESS (please, please, please) an inspiring and inspired leader comes forward. At this point, we need a political messiah!

Losing the 2008 election does not compute.

I'd support him if he was, if of course he didn't run a Republican on the ticket, but he won't win it.

Not now, not ever.

Dennis speaks his mind. It's that simple. Cynicism and judgment is the issue.

This thread has run it's course. Hardly anyone has addressed what a stridently anti-war third party would do to the Democratic vote.

Vote for them? Not in a million years.

It's run it's course.